IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jrinsu/v87y2020i2p437-475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Measures Based on Benchmark Loss Distributions

Author

Listed:
  • Valeria Bignozzi
  • Matteo Burzoni
  • Cosimo Munari

Abstract

We introduce a class of quantile‐based risk measures that generalize Value at Risk (VaR) and, likewise Expected Shortfall (ES), take into account both the frequency and the severity of losses. Under VaR a single confidence level is assigned regardless of the size of potential losses. We allow for a range of confidence levels that depend on the loss magnitude. The key ingredient is a benchmark loss distribution (BLD), that is, a function that associates to each potential loss a maximal acceptable probability of occurrence. The corresponding risk measure, called Loss VaR (LVaR), determines the minimal capital injection that is required to align the loss distribution of a risky position to the target BLD. By design, one has full flexibility in the choice of the BLD profile and, therefore, in the range of relevant quantiles. Special attention is given to piecewise constant functions and to tail distributions of benchmark random losses, in which case the acceptability condition imposed by the BLD boils down to first‐order stochastic dominance. We investigate the main theoretical properties of LVaR with a focus on their comparison with VaR and ES and discuss applications to capital adequacy, portfolio risk management, and catastrophic risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Valeria Bignozzi & Matteo Burzoni & Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Risk Measures Based on Benchmark Loss Distributions," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(2), pages 437-475, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:87:y:2020:i:2:p:437-475
    DOI: 10.1111/jori.12285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12285
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jori.12285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koch-Medina, Pablo & Moreno-Bromberg, Santiago & Munari, Cosimo, 2015. "Capital adequacy tests and limited liability of financial institutions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 93-102.
    2. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    3. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    4. Weber, Stefan, 2018. "Solvency II, or how to sweep the downside risk under the carpet," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 191-200.
    5. Tsanakas, Andreas, 2009. "To split or not to split: Capital allocation with convex risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 268-277, April.
    6. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    7. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    8. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    9. M. Burzoni & I. Peri & C. M. Ruffo, 2017. "On the properties of the Lambda value at risk: robustness, elicitability and consistency," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1735-1743, November.
    10. Paul Embrechts & Giovanni Puccetti & Ludger Rüschendorf & Ruodu Wang & Antonela Beleraj, 2014. "An Academic Response to Basel 3.5," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Matteo Burzoni & Ilaria Peri & Chiara Maria Ruffo, 2016. "On the properties of the Lambda value at risk: robustness, elicitability and consistency," Papers 1603.09491, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    12. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 593-606.
    13. Fabio Bellini & Elena Di Bernardino, 2017. "Risk management with expectiles," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 487-506, May.
    14. Alfred Galichon, 2010. "The Var at Risk," Post-Print hal-03588292, HAL.
    15. Alfred Galichon, 2010. "The Var At Risk," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 503-506.
    16. Ruodu Wang, 2016. "Regulatory arbitrage of risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 337-347, March.
    17. Artzner, Philippe & Delbaen, Freddy & Koch-Medina, Pablo, 2009. "Risk Measures and Efficient use of Capital 1," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 101-116, May.
    18. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    19. Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi, 2015. "On elicitable risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 725-733, May.
    20. Robert Jarrow, 2013. "Capital adequacy rules, catastrophic firm failure, and systemic risk," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 219-231, October.
    21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2279 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Song, Yongsheng & Yan, Jia-An, 2009. "Risk measures with comonotonic subadditivity or convexity and respecting stochastic orders," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 459-465, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cosimo Munari & Stefan Weber & Lutz Wilhelmy, 2023. "Capital requirements and claims recovery: A new perspective on solvency regulation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(2), pages 329-380, June.
    2. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Marlon Ruoso Moresco, 2022. "Star-Shaped deviations," Papers 2207.08613, arXiv.org.
    3. Martin Herdegen & Cosimo Munari, 2023. "An elementary proof of the dual representation of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2306.14506, arXiv.org.
    4. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Max Nendel & Jan Streicher, 2023. "An axiomatic approach to default risk and model uncertainty in rating systems," Papers 2303.08217, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    6. Erio Castagnoli & Giacomo Cattelan & Fabio Maccheroni & Claudio Tebaldi & Ruodu Wang, 2021. "Star-shaped Risk Measures," Papers 2103.15790, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    7. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2021. "Star-shaped acceptability indexes," Papers 2110.08630, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    8. Matteo Burzoni & Cosimo Munari & Ruodu Wang, 2020. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Papers 2007.08829, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    9. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    2. Matthias Fischer & Thorsten Moser & Marius Pfeuffer, 2018. "A Discussion on Recent Risk Measures with Application to Credit Risk: Calculating Risk Contributions and Identifying Risk Concentrations," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-28, December.
    3. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Yen H. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2018. "Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 393-407.
    4. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    6. Liu, Peng & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Linxiao, 2020. "Is the inf-convolution of law-invariant preferences law-invariant?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 144-154.
    7. Marie Kratz & Yen H Lok & Alexander J Mcneil, 2016. "Multinomial var backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Working Papers hal-01424279, HAL.
    8. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Y-H & McNeil, Alexander J., 2016. "Multinomial VaR Backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," ESSEC Working Papers WP1617, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    9. Samuel Solgon Santos & Marcelo Brutti Righi & Eduardo de Oliveira Horta, 2022. "The limitations of comonotonic additive risk measures: a literature review," Papers 2212.13864, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    10. Del Brio, Esther B. & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2020. "Risk quantification for commodity ETFs: Backtesting value-at-risk and expected shortfall," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    12. Asimit, Alexandru V. & Bignozzi, Valeria & Cheung, Ka Chun & Hu, Junlei & Kim, Eun-Seok, 2017. "Robust and Pareto optimality of insurance contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 720-732.
    13. Mucahit Aygun & Fabio Bellini & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2023. "Elicitability of Return Risk Measures," Papers 2302.13070, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    14. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    15. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Fernanda Maria Muller & Marlon Ruoso Moresco, 2022. "A risk measurement approach from risk-averse stochastic optimization of score functions," Papers 2208.14809, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    16. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    17. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    18. Tadese, Mekonnen & Drapeau, Samuel, 2020. "Relative bound and asymptotic comparison of expectile with respect to expected shortfall," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 387-399.
    19. Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Yunran, 2020. "Characterizing optimal allocations in quantile-based risk sharing," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 288-300.
    20. Owusu Junior, Peterson & Alagidede, Imhotep, 2020. "Risks in emerging markets equities: Time-varying versus spatial risk analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 542(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:87:y:2020:i:2:p:437-475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ariaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.